No one nor 100% never (Godel, Tarski, Zadeh, etc), so no one ToE but the simpler possible ToEs’ tool is possible (LoL)

Evolution is a frontend of the deterministic backend. We want to know the backend source code, but we can only try to decrypt parts of it through improving the usability of our frontend lifes (that are part of it). We will recognize evolution trends looking at the peculiarities we humans have when compared to other entities. But also, at the same time, as more usable we recognize our peculiarities are, more far we get from getting to the backend source. This trend is yet another fine tunning show-off looking for more sustainable diversity, since it will be not that much perfect otherwise if the enigma could decrease at some point.

The physical mechanism (mechanicism is only a useful methodology for explaining a little known relative part of the whole of it where the vast majority is unknowable) we live in applies to all we see, experience or interact, and it is designed for giving us the posibility of understanding parts of its very complex mechanics in the simplest possible way: from simple poles of 2.

So we should be able to recognize very easily close behaviours in our pecualiar daily habits that are already following the simplifiable complexity of the natural mechanism where by life is pumped.

We humans all are very peculiar at the of using words and language. We can see how much evolution has guided us to become talkative while we should also simultaneously consider this language evolution from a more deterministic point of view i.e. words can accumulate a lot of energy, they were there polishing our bodies for «hijacking» us to pronounce them later). Regardless of the initial difficulties that anyone could have in interpreting the simultaneous retrograde perspective (yet another fine tunned simple complexity), there should be some easy clues from how is the the supercomplex natural mechanism through looking at how we manage the semantics (meaningfulness) through language.

Words are evolved symbols, yet another physical matter, with language just being a kind of more evolved body for them. We use words and language to form further evolved matter for our own please of getting deeper in the unknowability. Language semantics follow and show the evolutionary trends that are subjected to the simplified explainability through simple poles of 2. Sets of 3 are just the following more simple example of how to further entangle pairs (i.e. Tao1=Yin2Yan3). So by getting deeper in playing and understanding groups and sets of 2 and 3 words, it should be enough for bringing the more deep meaning-truth to anything through what words are capable of. From a flove.org more practical perspective, the priority is to develop simple semantic mechanisms for further enjoying the relational richness of this life we live.




All what we consider worth is an attempt to experience a closer relation with our unknown source. We won’t know the source, but we know that the source has to be good, because if between the source and the frontend one of both should have to be the «bad» one, it is going to give a more clear explanation for us to tell that we are some outer «bad» coming from a «good» ground than explaining it the way back. This is not an absolute or stand stand either, because in the end, although perspectives can be reduced to a bipole, both perspectives-poles are rellative to each other: I.e. See life either way as: Bad sources do a transitory good for a bad cause and or as good sources that can do transitory bad for a good cause.

In this good sense, love is yet one more frontend of its good source. We are in an evolutive race for more love. More love doesn’t decrease its Fear bad-antagonist pole. Love is greater as more Fear we are capable of domesticating (There is not a big Yang-ing without an equivalent Yin-ing in size). Probably there is not a better antagonistic word for Love than Fear (Hate will only apply when love is interpreted in Local Human relations, and not as when Love is interpreted more broadly and or in a foundational place).

Good, love, source, foundational essence, and so on is also relative to other elements, specially its semantic poles. More love flows when playing and realizing what’s important, worth, valueable, meaningful or more truth (Truth, in this sense, is an indicator that tell us about how much Fear has been domesticated). Also but more probably, there is not a better complementary concept for Love than Truth (although this, as every twin complementarity as human close relationships also are, is a thread very open to being further discussed). We can now see here that Love&Truth are a relative dual bringing refined but different energy than Love&Fear. So we can conclude with full coherence with the natural mechanism, that:

  • Love (or any unity) cannot be explained just by itself, but are rather its semantics what brings real meaning to it.
  • Love (or any other word) semantics have 2 basic poles (antagonist and complementary)
  • Love (or any other word) semantic poles are going to reach a stability form (a twin antagonist and very complementary words for it). In the case of the more complementary word, the consensus will be quite open and plural.

Diversity and consensus are playing with each other all the time




The meaning of the semantics of a word also depend in analogies with the other semantics from other words. I.e. Fear won’t be mainly defined as a lack of Truth (and not Love) only, we will have to compare Fear to other «Negative poles» words to understand-explain Fear better. All primaries elements from dualities have a familiar relation (common meaning). Comparing one word with its pole(s), then compare it to the relation of its sister (i.e. other primaries) in the other relation is key in the process of understanding-explaining each relation or word.


In every pair, there is always a primary and a secondary. Primarity doesn’t give real hierarchy over the secondary, because primarity is equivalently dependant-relative to its secondarity pole. Respecting this relativity principle, element 1.2.2 can be considered lower than element 1.1.3. As semantic polarities evolve – get refined to a pseudo-stable (always open..) point (i.e. Fear is the refined antagonist pole of Love), ranks for different sets of words can also get to the same stable point, and this way leave the explanation even more open to deeper and more diverse consensus.

To combine worthy words within more stable ranks brings more love&truth to each all

Ranks help to tell the more of the whole of it, bringing even more overall meaningfulness to all and each due to the




A stable meaning mechanism for words (semantics) that is made more clear (ontological scheme) implies it will start to construct automatic phrases (rethoric) that will sound to be very true and meaningful. The concrete things it finally tell us is about how to practice loveliness in different, reduced and entangled layers of life.

The more a theory arrives at proposing actions integrally, the better the theory…

The more an organized action is coherent within a transparent theory, the more meaning and impact the action has…


See more: What